Mr. THOMSON. This is what Swim says. Mr. Smith gave the name of the Sarah C. Pyle, of Gloucester, Captain Swett, as one vessel that had fished near shore in eighteen fathoms of water. Mr. FOSTER. It is not Sylvanus Smith who speaks of that. lows: The question is as fol Can you give us the name of any of these vessels that you say have been fishing within that distance of the shore in 18 fathoms of water?-Answer. I can give the name of one, the Sarah C. Pyle, Captain Swett, of Gloucester. I supplied him in the summer with 2,800 mackerel. But whose affidavit have we? Not the affidavit of Captain Swett, but of Benjamin Swim, of Gloucester. Now, there is no word that during the whole of this season he commanded the Sarah C. Pyle. This evidence was given a long time ago, while the affidavit, which purports to be a contradiction, is sworn on the 10th of October, months after he had given the evidence. Captain Swim had the printed evidence, I presume; at all events, some person must have had the printed evidence and communicated to him its purport. He must have read the statement that it was Captain Swett who commanded her, and that the witness, William B. Smith, sold her 2,800 mackerel. Now, this affidavit is altogether silent as to Captain Swett. If it was intended to be a contradiction of the witness's statement, there should have been a statement that there was no such person as Captain Swett in command of that vessel. Captain Swim does not undertake to say that he commanded the vessel during the whole time since April last. He says: "I am now master," &c.; "have been since April." He may have sent another man out as captain and himself remained master upon the register. It would be quite consistent with anything that he has stated in his affidavit. Mr. FOSTER. The affidavit is dated the 10th of October, while the evidence was given on the 28th of September. So there is not such a great while between. Mr. THOMSON. But it is undoubtedly made for the purpose of contradicting William B. Smith, and I say that it is a most singular circumstance that they produced no affidavit from Captain Swett. Mr. FOSTER. There is no Captain Swett. Probably the short-hand reporter got the name wrong. Mr. THOMSON. If this affidavit was intended as a contradiction, it should have contained an allegation that there was no Captain Swett; that there was no other Sarah C. Pyle, and that this deponent had been in command of her during the whole time. Even had all that been done, there would have been this important question, whether a man who comes here and subjects himself to cross-examination, and whose evidence is substantially unshaken, can be, or ought to be, contradicted by an affidavit made in a chamber by some interested person, behind the back of the person to be affected by it, and absolutely protected against any hostile cross-examination. I say, that any writing, produced under such circumstances, to contradict such a witness, is not worth the paper it is written on, and ought not to be. What is the reason he did not come here? If he was intended to contradict our witness, why, in common fairness, didn't he either come here, or show some reason that prevented him from attending as a witness in person? Shoals upon shoals of witnesses have come here from Gloucester and been examined. What is the reason that Swim did not come, as Smith did, and subject himself to cross-examination? Smith was not afraid of cross-examina tion. Why was Swim? I dismiss his affidavit as no contradiction whatever. Mr. FOSTER. Don't dismiss it until I call attention to the fact that further on in the cross-examination of Smith, he says he does not know where the Sarah C. Pyle caught her halibut at all, and that all he knows is that he supplied the bait. Mr. THOMSON. Where is that? Mr. FOSTER. Read right along in Mr. Dana's cross-examination. His statement on cross-examination is as follows: Q. You have with you a memorandum concerning this vessel to which you sold these mackerel ?-A. Yes. Q. What did they do with mackerel ?-A. They put the fish in ice on board. I do not know what became of the latter afterward. Q. What did the vessel do then?-A. She went out to fish. Q. Did you see her do so?-A. Yes. Q. Did she continue fishing with 2,800 fresh mackerel on board?-A. The captain took them for part of his bait. We did not supply him altogether with bait. Q. Did you go on board of her after she left the harbor?-A. No. Q. Do you know what she caught?-A. No. Q. Whether cod or mackerel ?-A. No. Q. It might have been cod?-A. Yes. Q. Why did you say it was halibut ?-A. I said that we supplied him with bait, but I do not know that she caught halibut. Q. As to those vessels, can you tell with your glass at that distance whether what they haul on board is halibut or cod?-A. I do not know what they catch, but they say that they come there to fish for halibut. I frequently converse with them. Mr. THOMSON. He says this Captain Swett is a neighbor of his; that the Sarah C. Pyle, of which Captain Swett was master, fished for halibut; that he supplied him with 2,800 mackerel; that she went out to fish, and in answer to the question why he said it was halibut she caught, he says, we supplied her with bait; and in answer to the next question he says, he does not know what they catch, but that they say they come there to fish for halibut. Captain Swett told Mr. Smith that he came there to fish for halibut, and Smith believed his word; and I say that his evidence stands entirely uncontradicted; and, in view of what I have seen of this evidence, I shall dismiss the affidavit of Swim as being entirely irrelevant, and having no bearing whatever upon the matter. But there is another man that was brought forward to contradict Mr. Smith. Confronted with the maps, and shown that the soundings were there that he had undertaken to say were not there, he was obliged to admit that he had not been there for eleven years, while Mr. Smith had given evidence referring to. a period within a couple of years. There is another witness that they put forward to contradict Hopkins' testimony. On page 417 of the British evidence, Hopkins testifies as follows: Q. Are you aware that halibut is taken inshore by boats as well as cod and pollock !—A. By our boats? Yes; it is taken inshore. Q. I think you said you had heard of Americans coming in within three miles, but you did not know?-A. I do not know. Mr. Cunningham will know more than I do. It is a little aside from where my business takes me. I have understood they have been in a good deal around St. John Island, just west of where I am. Q. That is within miles?-A. Close in. In this connection I will turn your attention to the evidence of Joseph Coutoure, page 280. He says: I am 42 years of age. I live at Cape Despair, in the county of Gaspé. I am a fisherman, and at present employ men in the fishing business. This fishery is carried on along the coast from one to three miles from shore, and also on Miscou Bank. The Americans fish there. I have seen as many as 40 sail fishing there at the same time. Mr. FOSTER. That was in 1857 ? Mr. THOMSON. Yes; I want to show that the fish were there. The whole evidence shows that the codfish do not fall off. Now on page 293 we have the evidence of Louis Roy, of Cape Chatte, Gaspé, fish merchant, formerly fisherman. His evidence is this: Q. Is the cod as abundant now as it was 30 or 40 years ago? Do you get as much ?—A· O, yes; as much as 30 or 40 years ago. I am sure of it. I will not read but simply refer to the evidence of James Horton, James Jessop, and the Hon. Thomas Savage, which is all to the same effect as to this question of the cod fishery, and therefore I submit that this was not a part of our Case to be summarily dismissed upon the principle that there are no suakes in Ireland. Now I pass from the cod fishery to the question of bait. Upon that subject I want to be distinctly understood. I will just refer you in general terms to the question. Under the decision of this Commission the bait which the Americans who come into our harbors purchase cannot be taken into consideration. The point, therefore, that I have to make in view of that decision is this, that so far as the evidence shows that the Americans have gone in for the years that are passed, and have themselves fished for bait or employed others to fish for it, that must be taken into consideration, upon the principle that the man who employs another to fish for him in point of law fishes himself. I presume that will not be disputed. In reference to the years that are to come, the proposition that I submit is this: That this Commission having decided that under the Treaty of Washington the privileges of buying bait and ice, and of transshipping cargoes, are not given by that treaty, American vessels have no right to exercise them, and if they do so, they are liable to forfeiture under the Convention of 1818. Therefore, as regards these rights, we go back to that convention, and American vessels exercise them at their peril. In reference, therefore, to the future of this treaty, American fishermen must be presumed to bow to your decision and obey the law. That being so, what will they do? They must get bait. They cannot do without it. And they will, therefore, have to fish for it themselves. In any case you must assume that they will get whatever bait they require from our shores during the next eight years, according to law, either by fishing themselves or going and hiring persons to fish for them, which, under the treaty, they undoubtedly have a right to do. Therefore, the only remaining question is whether this bait is absolutely necessary for them or not. Now the whole evidence shows that without the bait they cannot prosecute the fisheries at all. Even their own codfisheries it is really impossible for them to carry on, unless they get our bait. That must be thoroughly understood by American fishermen, as indicated by the extraordinary efforts made to get rid of the difficulty. That is clear, because Professor Baird was put upon the stand to give evidence that a new process had been discovered by which clams could be kept fresh for an indefinite length of time, and that these could be used for bait. They were so fresh when so preserved, I don't know for how many weeks, by this process, that the Centennial Commissioners made up their minds, and bold men indeed they must have been, to eat these clams that had been preserved for six weeks. But Professor Baird omitted to tell this Commission a matter which was very essential to the inquiry, and that was what was the chemical process and what was the cost of that process by which bait which would become putrid and useless under ordinary circumstances within the usual time, was prevented from becoming in that condition; and I think until that fact is made clear your honors must dismiss it from your minds. I only refer to it to show that the American Government felt that upon that subject it was in a very difficult position. It is clear, therefore, to my mind, and I think it must be assumed by this Commission, that without fresh bait American fishermen cannot get on. The next question is, can they get a supply of fresh bait on their own shore? There is a consensus of evidence given by witness after witness, who went on the stand and stated that he came in once, twice, three times or four times during one season for fresh bait into ports of Nova Scotia, along the Cape Breton shore. I did not examine as to the Grand Bank fishing vessels, for that part of the case I left to my learned colleague, Mr. Whiteway; but as to the George's Banks fishery the supply of bait is obtained from our own shores. It is one of the matters your honors must take into consideration, that if American fishermen were kept out of our shores so that they could not get bait, not only their mackerel-fishing in the bay, which was a subject of very considerable contest, would go down, but their codfishery would go down also. According to the evidence, if your honors will examine it, we hold the keys in our hands which lock and unlock the whole North American fisheries; I mean the North American fisheries for cod, halibut, mackerel, and herring; in fact for all those fish which are ordinarily used for food. Mr. FOSTER. Do you say mackerel ? Mr. THOMSON. Yes; in regard to mackerel I will show that we hold the keys. It is probably forestalling my argument a little; but Mr. Foster, in the course of his speech, asserts that because the larger proportion of mackerel, as he says, comes from the American coast, our mackerel do not have any effect on the market. Mr. FOSTER. I thought you were speaking about bait and the bait question. Mr. THOMSON. So I was. Even for mackerel it is not much of pogie bait they use, and at all events they use other bait as well; but pogie is not necessarily an American bait; it is a deep-sea fish, as has been shown by different witnesses. Now, in regard to the quantity of bait, I refer you to the evidence. John F. Campion, of Souris, Prince Edward Island, pp. 36, 37, and 45, says: There are large numbers of American trawlers off Cape North. They catch their bait around the coasts of Newfoundland, sometimes at St. Peter's Island, and at Tignish Bay. I have seen them catch herring for bait this spring. Three or four were setting nets right in our harbor. John James Fox, Magdalen Islands, at p. 114, says: Americans catch bait largely in our neighborhood; the chief place for catching it is at Grand Entry Harbor. They set their nets on shore; they want this bait for cod-fishing. Angus Grant, Port Hawkesbury, Cape Breton, at pp. 184, 185, says: Americans both purchase and fish for squid; they catch squid by jigging. Large quantities are taken at Hawkesbury. They buy and catch bait at Crow Harbor and those places. James Purcell, Port Mulgrave, at p. 197, says: United States vessels get their bait in our harbor. They sometimes buy it, and sometimes catch it. I have seen them catching it. I have seen 18 vessels taking squid as fast as they could haul them in, at Hawkesbury. John Nicholson, Louisburg, Cape Breton, at p. 205, says: Americans both fish for their bait and buy it. I have seen them fishing for squid close to the shore. John Maguire, Steep Creek, Nova Scotia, at p. 213, says: James Bigelow, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, at p. 222, says: John Stapleton, Port Hawkesbury, Cape Breton, at pp. 228, 229, says: I have seen numbers of Americans catching squid in Port Hawkesbury; this year I suppose 15 or 20 sail; last year about 25 or 30. They cannot carry on the Bank fishery with. out procuring fresh bait. Hon. Thomas Savage, Cape Cove, Gaspé, at p. 264, says: I have seen Americans come in and catch bait themselves, or rather set their nets to do so; among our fishermen they seine for it; they would do very little at codfishing without the privilege of getting fresh bait. James Baker, Cape Cove, Gaspé, at p. 270, says: Americans fishing at Miscou Bank came in to different places along our coast for fresh bait; they principally catch it themselves, taking squid, mackerel, and caplin. They took it close inshore. James Jessop, Newport, Gaspé, at p. 277, says: American codfishers run up to Shippegan and Caraquette and fish for herring, for bait, with nets; they also take mackerel and squid; they could not carry on the fishery profitably without coming in to get fresh bait. William Flynn, Percé, Gaspé, at p. 278, says: There are annually about 400 codfishers in the bay; they get a great deal of their bait inshore along our coast by setting nets for it, and sometimes by buying it. I have seen them seining herring and caplin, and have heard that they jig squid and bob mackerel. I don't believe they could carry on the codfishery profitably without coming inshore for fresh bait. John Short, Gaspé, at p. 284, says: American codfishers get a great quantity of their bait from the inshore fishery. I have seen them set nets and have no doubt of their catching their bait inshore. They often draw seines to shore for caplin and small fish. Without the right of coming inshore they could not successfully carry on the deep-sea codfishery. Abraham Lebrun, Percé, Gaspé, at p. 288, says: I have heard from United States captains that there are 500 codfishers in the bay. They get their bait on the coast. They take herring in nets. They also catch squid, and seine caplin. They take mackerel as well. They bring their nets with them. They had either to procure fresh bait or go without fish. John F. Taylor, Isaacs Harbor, Nova Scotia, at p. 296, says: United States codfishers in the Gulf run inshore for bait-they go in boats to get them. Without the right of getting fresh fish inshore, they could not carry on the fishery with success. George Romeril, Percé, Gaspé, at p. 309, says: Most of the United States codfishers come inshore for bait. They get it with nets and by purchase. They take chiefly herring. They bring their nets with them, and catch the bait themselves close inshore. The codfishery could not be carried on successfully without access to the shores for bait. James Hickson, Bathurst, New Brunswick, at p. 341, says: United States vessels come inshore and fish for bait when they can, and buy it when they can. They take squid inshore. They couldn't carry on the fishery without com. ing in for bait. John Dillon, Steep Creek, Nova Scotia, at p. 360, says: Some United States vessels come inshore and set their nets for bait. Thomas R. Pattillo, Liverpool, Nova Scotia, at p. 376, says: I have known plenty of men catching their own squid in Newfoundland or Canso. |